Actually the second amendment is the only reason lawmakers respect the rest of the Constitution.
If they were not afraid of another civil war, they would ignore the fourth amendment, like they already do in New York City.

If you are a lawmaker, you are welcome to make a personal confession about your one reason to respect the Constitution. If not, please refrain from pretending you know other peoples' motives. Thank you.

My dear lady, I was pointing out the flaw in his rhetoric... which makes me pedantic, not liberal. What identifies me as liberal is the patience with which I seek to enlighten foolish reactionaries. No, no, don't thank me... it's the least I can do....

Judging by the opinions of the members of a popular gun forum I belong to, yes, there was indeed outrage and continues to be outrage over the Patriot Act by the same people that have issues with infringements on the 2nd Amendment.

Shame on you for the plethora of derogatory comments (and factual errors) in this article.

...and "anodyne?" ...really?

This article clearly demonstrates the haughty disdain the author/editor have for those who understand, appreciate and respect the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While you cite the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, you fail to acknowledge that "the right to keep and bear arms" is the 2nd Amendment, and not the 10th or 11th, for a reason. Its importance is reflected in its placement; it was THAT important to the delegates who were responsible for crafting and ratifying the first ten Amendments.

The 2nd Amendment was NOT crafted to secure the right to own a single-shot, bolt-action hunting rifle any more than the 1st Amendment was intended to secure the right of a magazine publisher to print pornographic pictures. The fear (rightly so) was of an overreaching, oppressive, tyrannical government - ANY government. The fact that the current Administration has a smiling, seemingly-benevolent, conciliatory "face" on it, doesn't lessen the potential for Government abuse of power.

I realize that this issue has a powerful emotional dimension, but whether its a homeowner protecting his/her family from an assailant, or a movement of citizens revolting against a government, the risk remains the same: Once the ability to resist is taken away, the Right to resist becomes irrelevant.

"Once the ability to resist is taken away, the Right to resist becomes irrelevant."
Exactly! Now that two centuries of advances in the art and science of war have rendered rebels with small arms alone incapable of overthrowing governments, that rationale for private ownership of (barely) modified military weapons is moot.
Armed revolution was a radical's pipe dream in the 60's. It still is.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Militias are referenced in order to preclude the establishment of a standing army, specifically because standing armies were (and are) an inherent threat to individual liberty. We're lucky, in that we haven't had problems with domestic use of our military (Kent State notwithstanding), but that doesn't mean that we won't in the future.

Placing the ultimate power of enforcement (guns) in the hands of citizens (who could VOLUNTEER for a militia without conscription) was meant as a way to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a Government (specifically, the Federal Government) to enforce unjust policy/law.

"Armed Revolution" has absolutely nothing to do with it, and I do not suggest anything of the sort.

I suspect you understand my point perfectly well - I'm quite familiar with partisans denying the obvious - but just to be nice, I'll rephrase:

The guys who wrote our Constitution at the end of the 18th century did, indeed, have a distrust of a standing army (as well as an inability to pay for much of one). Since then, technology has made a standing army NECESSARY - ICBM's won't wait for you to muster the militia, and world peace (and world trade, i.e. access to vital resources) must be guarded by men with guns... and tanks, and bombers, and aircraft carriers, etc., etc., etc. Modern reality trumps 18th century theory. Deal with it.

And, yes, that puts us at risk of our military - ask the Japanese-Americans - but there's no viable alternative. What guards our guardians is not civilian rifles & pistols, but the honor, patriotism, and professionalism of our officer corps, their oaths to the Constitution, their subservience to civilian authority, and the knowledge that military dictatorships aren't sustainable (the lesson of the late, unlamented Soviet Union).

Blue, I certainly agree with you that we have an exemplary military. I have a son, a son in law and two grandsons who are currently in that military. But if you think a civilian population that does not want to be subjuted cannot defeat a conscript military with small arms (that is what you would have if the people really wanted to resist the government) you have not been paying attention to world events for the last 50 years. Pardon the spelling, my spell checker is not working on this laptop.

Well, I'm only 60, and I wasn't paying close attention when I was 10, but I'm an Army veteran, my father was a career Army officer, and my brother was/is a Marine (they never quite get over it)... and yes, I'm telling you that civilians with small arms can't beat the US military.

Please don't tell me "Vietnam! Afghanistan!". Resistance to a foreign occupier succeeds by making the cost of the occupation greater than the value of controlling the damn place. After all, the foreigners have the option of packing up and sailing home, right? Soldiers putting down a rebellion do not have that option - they ARE home.

Your argument, then, is that "things are different now..." In the interest of staying on-topic with the original article, I appreciate your position, but respectfully disagree that the direction you advocate is the right one.

I guess you missed my point about conscript army. If things got bad enough to cause a revolt many in the service would join the resistance. I do not really think any of this will happen. That is not the point. The constitution is clear and we should never just ignore any law because we want to. If it is wrong change it. Otherwise why have written rules. I personally would like to see all laws, not the constitution, sunset at some point. 10 or 20 or even 30 years durability would require looking at the laws and hopefully end the custom of ignoring laws that are outdated or unpopular. It would also give congress something to do and hopefully establish a work ethic they seem to lack today. Sorry about the rant but it did feel good.

It is not the "group of rebels" that a tyrannical government would be afraid of, see the Sri Lanka Option - http://www.economist.com/node/16167758. But an entire populace that is armed and free strikes fear in those that would want to subjugate them. You may ask, "who is trying to subjugate you?', we now have a government that will soon control our health care, tells us what we can and can't eat, what kind of light bulbs we can buy, what we should think, and the list goes on and on, progressively (pun intended). The ultimate goal is a Malthusian perspective of world governance, and a free, wealthy, well fed country does not fit the template.

"The second is a misguided notion that the second amendment is the best and surest constitutional protection against tyranny. As Conor Friedersdorf sagely noted, the Bill of Rights offers much more effective and less costly checks on government power. There is the fourth amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure; the fifth amendment, which guarantees due process; the sixth amendment, which establishes fair trials; and so on. When these rights were hollowed out during the war on terror—by acts of Congress, the courts and even through executive orders—where was the outrage from those who see tyranny in every gun law?"

The writer dismisses one part of the Constitution: the 2nd Amendment. Then the writer goes on to say that other amendments offers more effective alternatives, only in the last sentence to then state that the government has no issue "hollowing out" if not ignoring parts of the Constitution, which is what the writer is advocating in the first place with regards to the 2nd Amendment. This, done in a manner that is an attack on those that support and defend the 2nd Ammendment, as well as all the other ammendments.

If you can ignore the 2nd Amendment, which the writer enthusiastically wants to, why then presume that the fourth, fifth, and sixth cannot also be ignored? I love the Economist- beautiful writing, entwined with intriguing facts, only to arrive at some cockamanian conclusion through the subtle flavoring of erroneous logic.

It would be best for the British to butt out of our debate on gun control. They will never be able to understand and just end up make fools of themselves trying to. They always fall on the wrong side of the debate, for historical and cultural reasons, so rather than losing 50 percent of their audience expressing an ignorant opinion (ignorant from the point of view of understanding the American psyche on guns) they would be wise not to get involved.

Want to bet that British elites everywhere in the U.K. employ armed personal protection?
-
(Hypocrisy always kills an argument).
-
/Here in the U.S., the president has his secret service.... I have mine.

I'd rather you didn't presume to speak for "the American psyche." From the perspective of some of us other Americans (who are every bit as American as you, if you don't mind), the opinions in this essay are a breath of fresh air--clear and bracing.

Andy, here's a hint -- the British/internationally-owned 'newspaper' TE employs people from many countries to report and comment on local issues in those countries. This includes, of course, the US. If you look at the by-line in the article you will see that this person is at least reporting from Atlanta - which last I checked was within the USA despite the attempt by some hotheads 150 years ago who started a civil war to insist on their 'state's rights' to own, abuse, and kill other human beings with impunity. Are you with with those hotheads ideologically?

Further, arguing that the modern British have anything to do with the British involvement in the US War of Independence is pure 'baloney'. It is simple fallacious reasoning that ignores the over 200 years of history that has transpired since then. Your argument puts you into the category of 'making a fool of yourself'. You also exaggerate the percentage of the audience that agrees with you -- another gross overstatement that identifies your foolish understanding of yourself and the world around you. You represent the 'wrong side of the debate' and your misstatements simply confirm that fact.

My friend, their editors are British and they are not publishing essays against more gun control, their bias shows up on whom they pick to pen the article, not where they live. The cultural divide I was talking about, was that the British did not grow up in a Gun Culture like a lot of Americans, had nothing to do with the Revolutionary War, which was an incredible stretch by any imagination.

How you get to any of your acquisitions is beyond me. Everyone that is for Gun RIghts, was for Slavery; The Revolutionary War comment, exaggerating the percentage of people in the USA who is against more Gun Control, when the actual percentage is greater than 50%. Whew! Good luck buddy.

All these brave cowboys refuse to understand that the country ALREADY has "well regulated militias". One is called the US Armed Forces. Then there are the local police departments. And so on. The catch is the wording "well-regulated" which everybody is most decided to ignore.
If police doesn't carry assault rifles (except for the SWAT unit), why the hell should some neighborhood jerk playing the Rambo own a Kalashnikov (or two)? Not to speak of some TV/Playstation-crazed lunatic teenager.
Yours truly

There is a difference between a militia and the army. Ever American has the right of purchase. The population being armed is a plus. The media supports hysteria because it is a way a increasing ad revenue. Stories on how someone defended their children from a house invader is not going to get the viewer/readership.
The police cannot protect you from a criminal. After the crime has been committed then the police become involved.

Well stated in regards to the police ... In any case, the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a citizen from harm.
-
/Nothing is easier than to disarm the law-abiding who far outnumber felonious criminals.

Few 'cowboys' in this discussion. Keeping reigns on derogatory terms might maintain civility in the discussion...and keep the discussion on track. The US Armed Forces are certainly NOT a militia 'Militia: A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.' The police forces aren't either. Also, you might note, most police officers do carry 'assault rifles' in their patrol cars in the US.

Why do you believe everybody who owns an assault type rifle is a 'neighborhood jerk playing Rambo'? I'd guess, considering how little these weapons are used in crime, the vast majority of owners are law abiding citizens.

The "well-regulated militia" phrase was not inserted as a reference to a standing army. The existence of a militia was intended to preclude the need for a standing army. The conceptual intent was to make it as difficult as possible for government to enforce an unjust law, precisely by keeping the power of enforcement (guns) in the hands of citizens.

Allow me to correct you, lest you mislead our friends across the pond who already suspect that we're crazy: The court ruled that the police cannot be held liable for failing to protect each citizen... as they should have, or every crime victim would find a lawyer and look for a payday from the government.

*OF COURSE* we hire police to protect society and it's citizens - why else spend so very much money to employ them? - but while Jay Gould claimed that "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half", paying half the population to be cops assigned as personal bodyguards to the other half is, er, not feasible.

Seriously, guy, do you really think that description of the citizens of the UK is in shouting distance of realistic? Yes, they still keep a family as national pets, with titles and pageantry and all, but the last time I looked, they were governed by elected officials. You know - democracy?

All of the ideas that you use to justify your position (the right to self-defense, the right to life and liberty, the existence of inalienable rights, etc.) were developed primarily by British philosophers, especially John Locke. The idea of checks and balances between different branches of the government also came from Britain. The UK is the oldest and most stable "democracy" in the world.

But if you don't like the UK because they still have a figurehead monarch, no problem. You can look at France, a constitutional democratic republic that violently overthrew their monarch and created the "Rights of Man" which preceded the American "Bill of Rights." They likewise have gun control. Just like every other wealthy and stable republic.

Civilians 'arming' themselves willy-nilly with any weapon they want because they like playing with guns does not in any sense constitute a 'well-regulated militia' nor can it be reasonably considered that they 'keep and bear arms'. There are no permitted militias (as you define) in the US and none of the ones that do exist are regulated in any way. They mostly include a pack of wannabees who like the adrenaline kick from the bang of shooting off a few rounds. Your argument represents the basic fallacy of the nutcake ideology on which the pro-gun lobby is based. Perhaps you should RESEARCH some of your statements BEFORE you type them.

That most US guns are not used in crime is simply a red-herring argument. With 300 million weapons circulating in the US, simple math indicates that 1) there are too many weapons out there, and 2) the percentage of these weapons unaccounted for, and likely in the hands of those who will use them for criminal acts, doesn't have to be very high for there to be a problem (1% = 3 million 'criminal' weapons; 10% = 30 million). Let's address the reality of the situation rather than make foolish arguments about what the US Bill of Rights actually means.

Here is another question for you -- over 50 police officers are killed by 'firearms' every year in the US; that's over 500 since the year 2000. The firearms used in these killings represent an even smaller percentage of the 'criminal' weapons out there. Do you think this is an acceptable price to pay for having so many 'legal' weapons in circulation?

Perhaps it's the parsing of the words in the US 2nd Amendment that confuse you. There is no dependency of the second clause upon the first. The second is independent. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is a very straightforward statement of an individual right, as was recently adjudged by SCOTUS. IF there are people in this country who want to remove that particular right, there are ways within the Constitution to do so, the Amendment can be changed or deleted. As long as the Amendment stays in effect, it must be respected. This is the fundamental strength of a constitutional democracy. One doesn't 'address the reality' of a situation by ignoring the basis upon which that society sits. If the government can ignore one Amendment to the Constitution, what prevents it from ignoring others?

A militia is the body of adult men, usually between a certain age group, i.e. 18-45. Well Regulated at the time of the writing of the US Constitution meant, 'Well Maintained'

As to red herrings, there are many of those on both sides of this discussion, nevertheless, there is little logic to removing an object from the vast majority of citizens because other citizens break the law using that object! There is little logic or justice to this. Laws should be put into place to punish crime and through that potential punishment, prevent crime. The idea that Adam Lanza would have caused no harm to children if my guns were outlawed by the government defies logic. Laws should punish lawbreakers, not citizens who obey the law.

Tragic as the deaths of law enforcement officers are, what makes you think their deaths would have been prevented had the laws currently proposed been passed ten years past? Asking if the 'price' is 'acceptable' is one of those red herrings you spoke of earlier. It's like asking the same question about illegal drugs in the US. Wouldn't it be worth it to make dangerous recreational drugs illegal if you could prevent all the overdose deaths that occur each year in the US? Sure, why not? The problem is, such laws don't quite work as planned.

South of the US in Mexico, gun laws are far stricter, as are drug laws, yet Mexico has a terrific problem with murder by drug gangs. Why? Don't fall for the bullshit answer that it's because of all the guns from the US. The reason is all the money from the US to pay for illegal drugs! Mexico is paying the price for US drug laws. If there is enough demand, the supply will be there. (No, I don't propose eliminating all drug laws, although I do believe Marijuana should be legalized)

Just so you understand, the vast majority of the gun crime in the US is perpetrated by young men in urban areas against other young men in urban areas and is related to gang activities and/or drugs. The political capital and will should be focused on solving the issues of these urban areas instead of removing firearms from law abiding citizens. Note: Most of the cities where this crime occurs already have strong gun control laws. These laws haven't been effective.

What, did you have trouble sleeping and couldn't get this off your mind? Your parsing argument is foolish and incorrect. The SCOTUS (as stated in the article) has found that gun control can be enacted and still be constitutional -- without stating the exact nature of the control. Parse to your hearts content -- this is a red-herring.

Too bad you don't care enough about cops getting killed to consider some reasonable kind of gun control. I have not argued for taking all guns from everyone. Which is the knee-jerk assumption of most gunner advocates like yourself.

Then you simply dream up a definition for militia and well regulated. That is your dream, along with the NRA and other gunners out there. It is nonetheless a dream that just any group of wannabes can get together and make themselves into a 'well regulated militia'. Here's a hint -- compare the population of the US when the constitution was written and now. Compare the size of the US military then and now. Then compare this to the same info in relation to Britain. As an aside, the US won the War of Liberation as much by default as by force of arms, since the British Army and navy were primarily concerned with containing France in Europe (look where most of the British navy ships were deployed at the time). There was a need for these kinds of militias back then, and a real fear and understanding on the part of the 'holy' founding fathers that the Brits could, if they changed their focus, easily redeploy more than enough military force to make a mess of the Revolution. Any hint that the same factors are involved in modern times is simply delusional.

Point being, a self-appointed 'militia' in the modern US is nothing but a bunch of crazies pretending they are doing something constructive by practicing shooting guns. NOT saying, of course, that these crazies are out shooting up the countryside, killing others. There are, after all, differences in kinds of mental illhealth. Since most of the murders in the US are, indeed, criminals shooting other criminals, and most of these criminals hide in the larger cities and population centers.

I have argued for many years that the problem w Mexican, Columbian, and Bolivian drug cartels has always been US money flowing into the wrong hands (that is, the hands of criminal psychotics). This issue has, from when I first started following it in the 70s, been a very clear example of how markets function. Enough to make a capitalist of anyone willing to see the facts. Gun control really has nothing to do with it. And Fed resources and lives are put on the line to try to repress very strong market forces--errors will therefore be made. Those same market forces do, in fact, draw US guns into Mexico, too, but yes, the money can buy guns from a world market awash in cheap weaponry. The solution here is applying market related measures, like legalizing marijuana, as argued in TE many times before.

Must you make some derogatory personal remark part of every post you make? There are four time zones in the contiguous US. I was up no later than usual.

Yes, indeed, SCOTUS has ruled that reasonable gun laws can be constitutionally made and indeed there are many laws already on the books, some of which I noted. I personally don't have a problem with additional gun laws and stiffer penalties to help enforce gun laws currently in existence. I have a serious problem with laws being passed which have no real effect on gun crime but infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens. What value the ludicrous laws passed in New York? That legislature passed that law so quickly and with so little review they forgot to exempt their own police forces from the restrictions! Did they really think spending a week to make a good law instead of a knee-jerk law would make a difference? I'll say no, but they were seen to be 'doing something'. Believe what you will about the need for gun control, passing bad laws just for show is stupid and reckless.

You may recall my last post submitted proposals for enforcing existing laws and increasing penalties. There are good laws on the books that aren't being effectively enforced and there is room for laws that can have an effect on the issue at hand without infringing on rights. Because these laws don't have the flash of 'were gonna control guns', they aren't discussed.

Regarding market pressures, I don't see a significant increase in illegal gun trade related to the current crop of gun control measures under consideration. After all, 'assault type' weapons are seldom used in the majority of gun related crimes and the average number of shots per crime are fairly low. You appear to have both the knowledge and experience to give a reasoned reply to this question; If in the near future, gun control advocates were to gain enough support to pass legislation similar to current control measures in the UK, do you believe the US would face a repeat of the attempt to prohibit alcohol from 1920-33? I live in the US and puzzle a bit over this question. Of course, many citizens would follow the law and give up their firearms. Others however, though currently law abiding citizens, would believe such laws fundamentally wrong. (Assume this was accomplished through a repeal of the 2nd Amendment)

Note; I am somewhat familiar with firearm laws in the US. I have a limited type of Federal Firearms License (Collector of Curios and Relics). Even though my license is limited I receive a copy of "State Laws and Published Ordinances — Firearms" and "Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide". There are a combined 700 pages of laws and regulations contained within those documents.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

The author gives away his foundational bias near then end where he refers to the Lizard Brain appeal of the Second Amendment. This is just one of the many thinly disguised propaganda pieces planted in the press by the Obama supporters.

The assertion that Obama does not want to seize guns is without foundation and runs counter to the beliefs of his closest supporters. The author fails to acquaint the reader with some of the fundamental truths regarding gun ownership........

Americans use guns to defend their families, their property and their lives far more often than the press or Obama acknowledges. Gun opponents assert that armed citizens do not stop mass killings........perhaps that's because, as the record shows, when citizens intervene them seldom become mass killings. In addition to the direct threat of stopping the would be killer, the armed citizen is certainly going to be a distraction.

The police are under no legal obligation to protect citizens against any criminal threat. Even if the dispatcher assures someone that the police are on the way there is no liability for a failure to intervene. Thankfully most of the times the officers do respond with skill and courage. But that's not always the case. LA's Korean community experienced that when during the riots the police, acting on orders withdrew their protection. Without an armed Korean community casualties and property losses would have been far higher.

Clearly Eric Holder's Fast and Furious was designed to force American gun dealers to make suspicious sales which they would not have made without direct instructions from DOJ personnel. At the same time the DOJ was issuing press releases which not only ignored the fact that many of the guns found in Mexico came from the DOJ but also using the information to slander American gun dealers. It's no wonder that Obama has exerted executive privilege and the whistleblowers have been terminated.

Holder's DOJ has also sent a strong message that they are not colorblind. One of their first acts was to have the conviction of the Black Panthers who appeared at the polling place with baseball bats to intimidate voters dismissed. The case was over but Holder intervened to erase the actions of the court. Ignoring the daily slaughter in the northern liberal strongholds, Holder sent an army of FBI agents to intervene in the Treyvon Martin case.

The concern about the administration's intentions is very well founded. It's clear that Obama would like to rid the nation of the right of citizens to own arms. His 2008 San Francisco fund raising plea said it all, " They (southern democrats) are still clinging to their guns and their religion", and therefore, he needed more funds to overcome this issue.

Other top administrative thinkers have called for filtering the internet so that the central authority could place annotations on comments they disagreed with.

Unfortunately, we are a nation whose fiscal policies would be irresponsible in a neighborhood crack house. The fiscal implosion of cities like Stockton, Oakland and perhaps Los Angeles are likely to leave citizens facing greater threats with less police protection.

Completely missing from the current discussion is the role prescription drugs and medial violence ( games, movies. music) has played in triggering these attacks. This is another piece of evidence that the objective is not to protect the people but rather to disarm them.

Your agrumentation is beyond reason here -- barely worth rebutting. Suffice it to say you have ignored 99% of reality -- that US guns have circulated into criminal hands in the US, Mexico, and the world since long before Eric Holder was appointed to head the DOJ and long before BO came into the picture. US gun dealers have been selling and profiting from shady gun sales for many years. These dishonest dealers are certainly a small minority, but are no less dangerous for that. The rest of your polemics is simply rehashed nonesense.

What changed with the arrival of Obama and Holder was the large scale, deliberate delivery of US weapons to Mexican drug cartels for the purposes of increasing the violence in Mexico and giving the administration ammunition to falsely smear gun dealers who had been ordered by DOJ to enter into transactions which they would not have done. If fact the gun dealers were bring information to the government about suspect purchasers.

A reasoned person looking at the connection between the DOJ press releases and their actions would come to the following conclusions.......

While the DOJ data indicated, somewhat obscurely, that when they announced the % of guns traceable to the US they were only counting the traceable guns, not the total number of confiscated guns.

They just happened to neglect to mention that traceable to US guns included military weapons provided to the Mexican government were also included in the count

Of course they also the never mentioned that a material % of the US traceable guns of non military source were in fact sourced by the doj. It was a classic disinformation program.

The primary weapons of most cartel folks are true assault weapons, fully automatic and therefore not available from US sources, other than those sold to the Mexican government by the US government. Mexico is in fact flooded with Eastern European and Soviet assault weapons.

Many of us are still waiting for the truth about Fast and Furious, now hidden under Presidential seal. It was only years after Ruby Ridge that the truth came out, senior FBI officials had offered perjured testimony and destroyed documents. They were promoted rather than punished. Many of us with a lifelong respect for the FBI had hoped that the departure of the then administration would lead to a cleanup at DOJ .

99% of gun owners want criminals, especially those armed with guns, off the street. They have been at the forefront of 3 strike laws, mandatory minimum sentences and other stronger. All of these measures are opposed by the left.

While there is a near hysterical response to Sandy Hook there is virtually no notice that a similar toll is taken in Chicago EVERY WEEK.

How can you believe such an allegation is beyond undersanding.
Europeans cannot understand how you can be so proud of your country, its achievements and, at the same time deny its government and organisation to solve problems the democratic way.
Hope you'll all end up with a reasonable compromise.

New York governor Andrew Cuomo jumped on the anti-Second Amendment bandwagon a few days later, on December 21, and proposed gun confiscation in the state. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option,” Cuomo said.

Just one of many liberal progressives who are finally proclaiming what they really think.

BTW - It is now reported that the Sandy Hook shooter used 4 handguns and not an assault rifle despite the coroners declarations.

But this one has it embedded. Notice the newscaster indicates that a few federal and state officials confirmed four handguns were found inside the school. Just going by what that right wing bastion of conservative news, NBC, says.

I don't know anything I haven't verified, I said it was reported, so go whine to MSNBC. What I do know is that Obama is giving, as in Merry Ramadan, 16 F-16s and 200 Abrams tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship of Egypt, but he can't trust his subjects of the United States of America with a semi-auto .22 caliber rifle. Doesn't seem quite fair and equitable.

http://www.therightscoop.com/ny-assemblyman-exposes-real-gun-control-con...
1. Confiscation of “assault weapons”
2. Confiscation o ten round clips
3. Statewide database for ALL Guns
4. Continue to allow pistol permit holder’s information to be replaced to the public
5. Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as “assault weapons”
6. Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
7. Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
8. Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
9. Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
10. Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
11. State issued pistol permits
12. Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
13. Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
14. Mandatory locking of guns at home
15. Fee for licensing, registering weapons”

I guess that people, hopefully only the sheriff of Cherokee county and that of Gilmer county too , are too illerate to read the Economist or understand the irony of their position. This is playing piano to a cow, as the Chinese would say.

Thank you for this article, it spoke right from my mind. I thought that your article would spawn a more reasonable debate on the matter, but looking at the comments below it seems my hopes are futile....

Those on the political right believe the left wing is acting with malicious intent. Unfortunately the U.S. Supreme court - in two separate decisions - REHBERG v. PAULK No. 10–788( Argued November 1, 2011—Decided April 2, 2012), as well as Imbler v Pachtman, (424 U.S. 409, 1976)encourages malicious prosecution. Conviction rates have topped 95% for decades, and poor people are rarely allowed to come to trial. Gang violence is rampant in large cities, and the left just ignores its responsibility in these matters. Rural America does not trust the liberal politicians of the big cities. They have good reason.

WOW! Talk about an article full of misinformation. Have you actually read the US Constitution? Have you just ignored all the Pelosi 'ban all guns' quotes? Where is the logic behind 10 round magazines as being all you need? I guarantee that if a gang of thugs is breaking into your house to rape your wife and daughter, there is no such thing as too many rounds in the magazine. Or aren't you willing to 'man-up' and protect your family?

Executive orders: What used to be a tool to order dishes for the White House has been perverted into a dictatorial device to legislate using the dishonest theory of 'inherent' powers. Just because presidents have used them in the past doesn't mean they're right. Any executive order that legislates is not supported by the Constitution and should be an impeachable offense. But then, Congress doesn't impeach anymore - I've lost count of the impeachable offenses committed by President Obama.

Congress: The constitution lists about 23 powers delegated to Congress by the People. Currently, wikipedia lists over 24!! pages of Federal agencies and offices. Congress now has 'implied' powers to do anything they can get away with. The role of the Federal government is so far out of control as make the Constitution nearly irrelevant. Very few have any idea of what limited government means and why it is the foundation for a free nation. The limitations of 10th amendment have all but vanished.

The Bill of Rights was passed because wise people rightfully feared a powerful central government, which is what we have now.

For the record, I am just as furious about the Patriot Act as the proposed infringements to the 2nd Amendment. I consider passing the Patriot Act as an act of treason and am deeply disappointed that Americans put up with it. Where's the article in the Economist that raises a voice of warning and tells everyone to oppose it? Where is ANY mainstream media push against it? Liars and hypocrites.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How can you have a militia without military arms? Currently, every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45 is part of the unorganized militia - up to 65 for former members of the military.

Hmm. Methinx you have a bad case of Pot Calling Kettle. For starters, can you cite--where, when--Nancy Pelosi proposed to "ban all guns"? You say you've lost count of Pres. Obama's "impeachable offenses". We don't need all of them, just give us two or three. I'll leave the other inanities of your rant unchallenged, but you really don't do our discussion of this issue any good by spewing untruths and paranoid falsehoods.

Impeachable offenses:
- deploying U.S. armed forces and conducting war against Libya without Congressional authorization or a declaration of war.
- insisting that a United Nations resolution authorizing "humanitarian intervention" is a higher authority than the United States Constitution.
- making dozens of appointments of special "czars" and recess appointments, to circumvent Congressional oversight and the Senate confirmation process.
- actions that destroy the sovereignty of the United State by giving the IMF increased power over the US economy at the London G20 meeting, including the expansion of "Special Drawing Rights."
- unauthorized shutdown and destruction of the NASA manned space flight program.
- expanding domestic surveillance and wiretapping, expanded the use of targeted assassinations, claiming the right to kill American citizens abroad without any due process.
And many more.

As for Pelosi, her record and comments on guns are not hard to find - ever heard of Google?

Try to understand that Obama says it is his goal to "transform America" . Transform to what?
And also, how do the people enforce the bill of rights when government seems intent on its weakening?
Britain is under a rash of robberies , burglaries, and assaults, precisely because the biggest man wins in a fight in the UK. When Mr Colt developed his handgun, many called it the "great equalizer" .
Methinks many in the UK would use the right to bear arms in a safe way, just as the majority here in USA do.

There are two measures of crime rates in the UK - one based on questionnaires of the public and the other on reported crimes and both show long term falls in crime rates. However, a lot of the cross comparisons between US and UK crime rates have been twisted to score political points - for example comparing reported crime rates for burglary and robbery with actual conviction rates. Overall, crime rates are roughly the same as in the USA except when it comes to murder where the rates are far lower in the UK. So, overall, the evidence isn't there to suggest that crime would fall in the UK if gun controls were abolished.

It is wishful thinking by some Americans to think countries like the UK and many others are awash will violent crime (and the USA isn't) because they have strict gun control laws.

Strict gun controls exist because they are highly popular and, in the UK, because the police are not normally armed. That latter issue is seen as pretty central to the democratic framework we have in the UK. And, no we don't have a 2nd Amendment, not least because we don't have a written constitution. That's not the way it works in the UK.

" As for keeping federal officers out, well, the South has tried that a couple of times before. It did not end well." Do you mean to raise the anti-gun movement to the same moral level as the civil rights crusade? Do you think most Americans would agree with that? Wow.
--Naivelytrustingreader

Yes. The anti-gun movement is at the same moral level as the civil rights movement. The number of deaths by gun fire in the US is a disgrace and inexcusable. The only countries with comparable rates are those that are also awash in firearms.

The sheriffs are obviously stating their position and ensuring that Obama doesn't simply dictate from the executive branch. He's already done that with his appointments as noted today.

As for the 'other' amendments, they are all being violated in one way or another.

4th - every time you file taxes, you are required to including private documents. Wiretapping and warrants for electronic information is rampant.
5th - due process is being violated by the Patriot Act which allows anyone (including US citizens) to be detained indefinitely with no due process
6th - fair trials - except when you are tried in a military court.

etc, etc. So saying that these other amendments protect you is false. They protect you to a point, but can be 'suspended' at any time.

You could ask yourself how many on the left attacked the Patriot Act when George Bush was in office and then fell silent when Mr Obama got into office. To say that there was silince on the Patriot Act from the right, and from these same people who protect the 2A, would be wrong and would be a good differentiator between politicians and true protectors of civil rights.

The 2A is not the best and surest protection from tyranical rule, it is the last and only real hope to prevent tyranny.

The anti-gun arguements are the best examples of straw man arguements I have ever seen. Picking extreme attention seekers, absolutely being unwilling to understand the technical and practical issues, demonizing and denegrate 2A supporters, and missuse crime and violence stats all seem standard fare. It is hard to have a debate when every single arguement for gun control is based on an lie or flawed logic. Go ahead try me out.

The thing that's always amazed (and dismayed) me about the American attitude is the notion that democracy (the very thing of which they champion themselves as being a beacon) is utterly ineffective against controlling their constantly on the verge of being a tyranny government. With that looming and indefensable threat always there - the ONLY solution is to hole up in your basement armed to the teeth ready to leap out and attack the evil government troops.

Well, ignoring the fact that those evil government troops are the SAME government troops who the also lavish such praise upon when sent abroad to attack countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to defend American freedoms (even if it's not obvious exactly *how* and *which* freedoms it defends...) the best defense against a tyranny in a democracy is to be deeply and constantly involved in the political system.

Democracy is not a sure fire way to protect against tyranny. It is a useful tool to keep govt from getting too abusive but the real protection comes from the rule of law and the observation of basic civil rights. A distinction that even Bush failed to understand in Iraq.

Put 'constitutional' in front of 'democracy' and then you have a sustainable defense against tyranny. One with out the other is either govt by judicial fiat or the rule of the mob.

As long as Jim Crow laws were supported by 51% of the voters, should they have been the rule of the land?

The "troops" we fear will be police, SWAT teams, and over-armed local, state, or feds. Not soldiers.
Voting will help control tyranny, but the last resort is an armed citizenry.
There are laws against almost every kind of crime, but as most of us here know- when you have seconds to protect yourself or family, the police are only MINUTES away.

As usual, attempts to discredit the idea of American guns being a check on tyranny run into two problems:

First, the elephant-repellent problem, in which the benefit occurs by something not occurring in a world in which any given thing doesn't occur most of the time by the natural operation of things, meaning you can't tell what's what. That includes not being able to gauge deterrent effects.

Second, and more vitally, is the fact that so massive a democratic free-market economy as America is a game-changer, just as it was in World War Two, meaning that we have no evidence about what would happen in the world today if America were either isolationist or a dictatorship. As was clear during the Cold War, massive economies have massive ripple effects. There's a strong tendency in human beings to assume that the future will be like the recent past but more so, but it's very dangerous. That's how we wound up with the housing bubble, the credit bubble, the explosion of derivatives and the Great Recession.

The problem with your thesis is that it's based on the notion that the US is somehow distinct from other countries and so can't be modelled.

Here's a counterview: Canada was founded by essentially the same mix of people (in fact, many original Canadians were both British Loyalists who moved to Canada after the War of Independence FROM the US, and settlers who were essentially from the same mix of people who originally settled the US). Yet we didn't have a War of Independence and we've never had the 'must defend ourselves from tyranny' mindset.

Here we are in 2013 and both of us have democratic governments - but oddly, Canada is the country where (according to your own ambassador to Canada) the people have 'too strong a sense of freedom'. We not only do not have a tyranny - we have one of the most easily disposed of governments on the planet. As has been noted, Canadians don't elect governments - we throw them out.

All without guns and the siege mentality.

So, going back to your point: the question becomes not 'you can't predict how it would have turned out', but rather, 'why is it so hard to compare histories of two so closely related and yet so different countries and see what caused the differences?'

So, essentially you folks up north benefited from our blood and fortune fight with old King George and now you look down your nose at us because our culture was born in the furnace of a revolution while you rode our coattails. Is that about it?

Actually we're still members of the British Commonwealth, so no coattail riding, revolutionary gun-totin' paranoia about government tyranny on this side of the border. We've seen what it does for you guys, so we'll leave it alone.

Anywhere it is this cold, it is definitely different. I, as it happens am also thankful, as it is kind of cold up there. I'd have to take off my gloves to reload my 10,000 round multi clip for my nuclear assault rifle.

Whatever, the tone from many American commenters here is that being warlike, or at least embracing the passion to take up arms to exercise the ability to kill, is a good thing. IMHO, most Canadians, through observation of the results in the USA, think otherwise.

But, on the other hand, Canada and the rest of the free world gets a huge free subsidy from American militarism protecting first world democracies against terrorism without requesting payment. Don't know why America does it, but Canada and Europe are quite willing to enjoy the free ride until you guys figure it out and stop spending so much bloody (literally) money on global defence instead of just your own.

And if we didn't have such a love and lust for democracy and individual freedom, where do you suppose the world would go? Would someone else or several someones step up fill the void or would evil just wither and die on the vine without the "Great Satan" to war against? It's an interesting question and I've often wondered why the democratic countries of the world (the real democracies - not Russia, Iran, etc.) don't form an effective and proactive force to police the world - not for politics but for freedom and against oppressive regimes that abuse their own people.

Thanks for a calm and rational comment. In my response, I'll try to be brief. There are lots of differences. Canada is the second-largest country in the world in land area, inhabited by roughly the population of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan put together, resulting in much smaller population density, which avoids many problems associated with that. It's also rich, with large amounts of natural resources, which avoids harder economic choices. And the Canadian military is minuscule; effectively, Canada is protected by its physical isolation from much of the world and by the U.S. (something it might keep in mind if the U.S. were ever a dictatorship).

In short, Canada hasn't been in real danger, or, frankly, done much interesting on its own, and so I don't think it's in a position to explain reality to the rest of us. Honestly, you make me feel like an inner-city inhabitant (as in fact I am) being lectured by an Amish person about paranoia in locking my house and car.

My point is that risk-taking isn't exactly their long suit as a people. If Canada had been the nation attacked at Pearl Harbor, what would it have done? The answer is that it doesn't matter, because for that to happen Canada would have to have a serious military and to have been so ballsy as to annex Hawaii in the first place. I like Canadians, and as you point out they've been allies, but I don't propose to be talked down to by one on this particular subject.

I don't think he was trying for superiority, just an honest comparison between very similar countries, kind of a valid area of discussion.

But if you are going to mention Pearl Harbor, I'll have to point out that they had their very own beach to assault on D-Day right near us, a rather risky day all around. And that's just for starters, risk-wise.

I think you answered your own question. The fact is Canada was not settled by the same mix of people. They may have come from the same parts of Europe, but clearly took a different view of government and what rights citizens had in response to a gov't which was violating their rights. So as you note, Canadians did not have a war for independence (though they had some limited rebellions which drove the process). And as for the lack of Canadian's "must defend ourselves from Tyranny mindset" again that simply is a result of the original differences in the population - you had a lot of loyalists come up there and they apparently had a higher level of tolerance for tyranny such that they did not support the US Revolution nor did they feel it necessary to start their own revolution but were willing instead to wait another 90 years for independence, and another 100 before they were allowed control of their own constitution.

So, I'd state the US and Canada are different because the majority of their founding populations took a different view. I also suspect the US colonies were much more affected my British regulations given the greater populations and thus economic activity as compared to Canada at that time. So, different subsets of the same European populations and different histories.

What does it all mean? Hard to say. Just like it's hard to say why Finland has as many guns per person as the US, but hasn't had mass shootings. Or why Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, but has more murders every day than any of mass shootings which occured in the US. There are many variables involved. Thus the "take the guns from the law abiding" actions proposed by the liberal elite (who can afford plenty of security for themselves) will not have the result they expect.

Much better. I only brought up military considerations because you did.

On the other hand, you might want to visit there in the winter sometime, and then tell me whether you still believe such a small population could have built all that in the winter (summer is a couple of weekends) without some serious, self-motivated risk-taking. no research required, one just looks at it all.

I'm just saying.

It is really quite remarkable. I'm sure you would like it there; its just a lovely place to visit.

Nice post, first you say that conservatives have nothing to fear, then you ridcule second amendment supporters as "lizard brained". No wonder they remain paranoid. If democrats knew they had a chance to get rid the first amendment, I am sure they would do it. My guess, is that they continue to "cling" to their guns.

Your sentence about it being constitutional is also questionable. Fact is, we don't know yet. Yes, the Supreme counrt said there limits on the second amendment, (just like many other rights), but we don't know exactly what they are. No doubt, if this is past, it will go before the supreme court.

I think most conservatives have no problem with increased security at schools, whereas i hear the liberals moan that it will cost too much or they may not work.

I am completely surprised that you have the strange idea that Democrats would like to "get rid" of the first amendment. The Democrats have strongly defended the first amendment against the Republicans, who have tried many times to cripple it. The odd views of the world that conservatives display is sometimes a source of humor (see: Jon Stewart) but mostly scary for rational people.

Actually, I think we can make an informed guess as to which guns are protected, since the Supreme Court established a test for that in Heller:
.
"the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes"

He didn't say they were lizard brained. He said their reactions were from the lizard brain. It's a common term used to describe hind-brain reactions which tend to be done on emotion or pure reaction to stimulus than higher conscious function.
His point is that many of the most vocal gun-rights supporters seem to have a 'my way or I shoot you' reaction to any discussion of gun control. Even in these comments, you see the instant escalation of 'maybe we should limit some of the crazier guns' to 'we want to ban all guns' (which NO ONE is suggesting). That reaction isn't rational - it's hind-brain (ie: lizard brain).
When you probe deeper to see why they want to own all and any weapons, you quickly realise there's some kind of cognative disconnect going on. 'To defend myself' - fair enough - you really need a 100 bullet magazine automatic machine gun to defend yourself? Where do you live - Fallujah?
Then there's the rapid shift from 'living in a democracy' to 'living in a quasi-dictatorship' mindset that pops out. Again, a disturbing misinterpretation of reality - especially for a country whose citizens keep purporting to be the best example of democracy on the planet.
As for limits on the second amendment - there are fewer restrictions on that right than there are on freedom of speech (the first amendment). All freedoms have limitations. The question is where that limitation lies. The Supreme Court has made at least one express decision (and that's the job OF the Supreme Court - to decide exactly these issues) which clearly states that the 2nd Amendment is valid - BUT is not unlimited. In essence Scalia's statement clearly states that a total ban is not constitutional - but limited bans are.
It's really not debatable any longer - unless you take it to the USSC.

I guess that is why the liberally indoctrinated left-wing student thugs shout down conservatives invited to speak at various liberal colleges around the country. You love the 1A,,,as long as you agree with what is being said, right?

Wait a minute here. You call the right operating from their lizard brain? When left wing gun grabbers knee-jerk auto reaction is to fire up their gun banning legislation that would at best remove the weapons that account for .06% of all gun deaths? Give us a break here. Your characterization of gun rights supporters is about as on-target as the usual suspects' current version of the gun grabbers bill. You conveniently forget that there are millions of law abiding gun owners who are armed for self-protection, sport, recreation and collecting. But you don't mind stomping all over them to get at that .06%...you guys are something else.

Regarding the First Amendment: It was the Obama administration that attacked freedom of religion when it attempted to mandate that Catholic organizations act against their religious belief in supplying contraception.

Can you site me an other-than-vague instance of liberals defending the first amendment?

"Mr Garrison and his ilk among CSOPA seem gripped by two common fallacies. The first is the belief that county sheriffs can violate federal laws that they happen to disagree with, and can deny federal officers the right to enforce federal law in their counties."

Perhaps there is a sentence there that I missed but... where did it say in the article that Mr Garrison or CSOPA felt that they could violate federal law or obstruct federal officers. If it doesn't document that, what exactly is the point of this article? I pretty much read that Southern people are a bunch of bumkins and if they get in the way of the civilized feds, the feds ought to kick their asses, as they have experience doing... If that's the way the writer feels, he/she could have said it in much fewer words.